CTNF 18/743,660 CTNF 102063 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the application filed on 06/14/2024. Claims 1-14 are pending in this application. Claims 1 and 8 are independent claims. Priority Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN 202331041173 filed on 06/16/2023. Foreign priority information is presented in the application data sheet under 37 CFR 1.76. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: “a database server configured to store one or more versions of one or more artifacts associated with the application” in claim 1. “an application server, communicatively coupled to the database server and wherein the application is hosted, configured to” in claim 1. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claim 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites limitations “a database server configured to store one or more versions of one or more artifacts associated with the application;” and “an application server, communicatively coupled to the database server and wherein the application is hosted, configured to” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to function. The limitations “database server” and “application server” are construed under 35 U.S.C 112(f). The specification only discloses a general-purpose database/application server and does not disclose the structure for performing the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Claims 2-7 directly depend from claim 1 and thus suffer the similar deficiency as claim 1. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-20-aia AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) and in further view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437) . Regarding claim 1, Zaky teaches: A system for enabling updating of artifacts in a live production environment of an application, the system comprising: a database server configured to store one or more versions of one or more artifacts associated with the application. ([0008] “For each component in an application, collecting information about the artifacts that occur therein; and storing the information in a database, is provided.” [0017] “FIG. 8 shows a view of a database, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, in which various artifact records may be seen.” [0042] “FIG. 9 of the drawings shows a flowchart of operations, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, for performing real-time analysis as artifacts are edited and changed.”) The database corresponds to the database server where both store artifacts associated with the application. Additionally, any changes made to the artifacts is done in a real-time/live environment. provide a code editor interface, on a user device communicatively coupled to the application server, for enabling a user to update at least one artifact definition associated with at least one artifact associated with the application, wherein the updated artifact definition is stored on the database server ([0008] “for each component in an application, collecting information about the artifacts that occur therein; and storing the information in a database.” [0031] “In one embodiment, document analysis may be performed as a given artifact is modified within an editor.” [0036] “FIG. 3 shows an apparatus, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, in the form of an interactive development environment (IDE) 30 . In addition to the components described with reference to FIG. 2 of the drawings, the IDE 30 includes a navigation component or navigator 32 , a document editor 34 , and a debugger 36 . In one embodiment, a user interacts with the IDE 30.” [0041] “The debugger 36 also utilizes the document analyzer 14 to generate a user interface (UI) to allow a developer to view and edit an artifact including information such as global variables and their values that could only be determined as a result of maintaining a rich semantic understanding of the entire application.” [0044] “Referring to FIG. 11 in process 100 the first characters of input related to an artifact and which are input by a developer is received.”) The code editor corresponds to the IDE, where the IDE consists of an editor allowing the user to make changes and edit an artifact as does the code editor interface. retrieve the updated artifact definition from the database server ([0038] “The navigator 22 then uses the reference to retrieve the artifact from the file system 16 . The end result is that the particular artifact”) The file system corresponds to the database server where both hold the updated artifacts and the navigator is utilized to retrieve the updated artifact. compile the updated artifact definition to generate a corresponding updated artifact suitable for rendering in the live production environment of the application ([0040] “In one embodiment, in process 66 , the document analyzer 14 generates an artifact record comprising the artifact information.” [0042] “Referring to FIG. 9, when typing in the document editor 34 ceases, a time-out causes a real-time consistency check to be performed. In process 80 , the document analyzer 14 determines whether or not the artifact being edited has changed.” [0043] “Referring to FIG. 10, in process 90 , the document editor 34 receives input to edit the source code for a component of an application being developed. In response to the input, and in accordance with the above described techniques, the document analyzer 14 performs a consistency check to ensure consistency between the source code and all artifacts referenced by the source code. If the consistency check reveals an error at 92 , then in process 94 the developer is alerted of the error.”) The document analyzer acts as a compiler and integrates all of the artifact updates and analyzes them in real time to ensure there is no error intended for the live production. Zaky does not teach : (1) an application server, communicatively coupled to the database server and wherein the application is hosted, configured to; and (2) render the updated artifact within the live production environment of the application in real-time, on the user device. However, Fox teaches: (1) an application server, communicatively coupled to the database server and wherein the application is hosted, configured to ([0005] “The update cycle includes the server device communicating to the client device whether there is an actionable change to the software artifact with respect to the artifact preferences.” “The update cycle further includes, when the server device communicates that there is an actionable change to the software artifact, the client device performing an update action in the software development environment in response to the actionable change.”) A person of ordinary skill in the art knows that an application server hosts the software whereas the database holds the data associated with the application. The server device introduced by Fox corresponds to the application server where both host the application. Additionally, Fox teaches a client device that communicates with the server device as does the application server with the database. Fox displays Fig 2 where two separate servers are drawn out. One of them (203) is a server storing artifact changes made by the user acting as the database holding that information. The second server (201) displayed in Fig 2 by Fox is the application server where detections are made and it holds the system that sends out notifications. This is similar to the applicants Figure 2 where the database server (216) is external to the application server (202). Additionally, Fox teaches: upon being notified of the user updates to the artifact definition, by the user device ([0010] “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating the structure of an exemplary artifact update notification system with a client/server architecture.” [0042] “An exemplary update action might include providing a notification of the actionable change, and blocking further use of the artifact in the software development environment until an indication acknowledging awareness of the actionable change is received by the client computer from the artifact user.”) The artifact update notification system corresponds to the notification prompted once a user has made updates to the artifact definition. Applicant states [0010] “wherein the updated artifact definition is stored in a database server; and publish an event notification to the application server upon detecting user updates to the artifact definition.” Whenever an update has been made to the artifact, a notification is prompted. In addition, Bregman teaches: (2) render the updated artifact within the live production environment of the application in real-time, on the user device. ([0010] “For example, continuous delivery generally means that a developer's software changes are automatically bug tested and uploaded to a repository, where they can then be deployed to a live production environment by the operations team.” [0011] “Continuous deployment can refer to automatically releasing a developer's changes from the repository to production, where it is usable by customers.”) Bregman teaches that when a developer has made a change to a software, the change is immediately made available to the user. This corresponds with a user’s updated artifact being made available to the user and similarly takes place in a live production environment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky with, an application server, communicatively coupled to the database server and wherein the application is hosted, configured to, as taught by Fox with, render the updated artifact within the live production environment of the application in real-time, on the user device, as taught by Bregman to create the claimed invention. By adding a notification system as taught by Fox to the teachings of Zaky, one would achieve the result of having an artifact up to date system with notifications. Making this modification would enable a timely respond to a user’s updates and provide the updated artifact resulting in better user experience and efficiency. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Bregman to the teachings of Zaky and Bregman in order to provide an integrated system that is capable of generating updates through an automated notification system while simultaneously maintaining a real-time live production. Regarding claim 2, Zaky teaches: enable a user to access the code editor interface for updating the at least one artifact definition associated with the application, wherein the updated artifact definition is stored in a database server; ([0008] “for each component in an application, collecting information about the artifacts that occur therein; and storing the information in a database.” [0031] “In one embodiment, document analysis may be performed as a given artifact is modified within an editor.” [0036] “FIG. 3 shows an apparatus, in accordance with one embodiment of the invention, in the form of an interactive development environment (IDE) 30 . In addition to the components described with reference to FIG. 2 of the drawings, the IDE 30 includes a navigation component or navigator 32 , a document editor 34 , and a debugger 36 . In one embodiment, a user interacts with the IDE 30.” [0041] “The debugger 36 also utilizes the document analyzer 14 to generate a user interface (UI) to allow a developer to view and edit an artifact including information such as global variables and their values that could only be determined as a result of maintaining a rich semantic understanding of the entire application.” [0044] “Referring to FIG. 11 in process 100 the first characters of input related to an artifact and which are input by a developer is received.”) The code editor corresponds to the IDE, where the IDE consists of an editor allowing the user to make changes and edit an artifact as does the code editor interface. Zaky does not teach: publish an event notification to the application server upon detecting user updates to the artifact definition. However, Fox teaches: publish an event notification to the application server upon detecting user updates to the artifact definition ([0010] “FIG. 1 is a diagram illustrating the structure of an exemplary artifact update notification system with a client/server architecture.” [0042] “An exemplary update action might include providing a notification of the actionable change, and blocking further use of the artifact in the software development environment until an indication acknowledging awareness of the actionable change is received by the client computer from the artifact user.”) Fox teaches an artifact update notification system with a client and server architecture which corresponds to the event notification that is sent to the application server once an update is detected from the user. One in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings of Zaky with, upon being notified of the user updates to the artifact definition, as taught by Fox with, render the updated artifact within the live production environment of the application in real-time, on the user device, as taught by Bregman to create an integrated system that is capable of generating updates through an automated notification system while simultaneously maintaining a real-time live production. As well as, an artifact update system that detects updates made by the user and sends a notification to the application server. Making this modification would enable a timely respond to a user’s updates and provide the updated artifact resulting in better user experience and efficiency. Regarding claim 8, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 1 besides the following limitation that Zaky teaches: A method for updating of artifacts in a live production environment of an application, the method comprising: providing, by a processing unit, a code editor interface for enabling a user to update at least one artifact definition associated with at least one artifact associated with the application, on a user device, wherein the updated artifact definition is stored on a database server; ([0006] “a method comprising generating a user interface to allow a user to make an input relating to a first component of an application; and if the input is related to an artifact, then presenting selected information about the artifact to the user, is provided.” [0008] “a method comprising, for each component in an application, collecting information about the artifacts that occur therein; and storing the information in a database” [0056] “The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processors in a computer, cause the computer to perform operations necessary to execute elements involving the various aspects of the invention.”) The computer program consists of one or more processors that enables the system to perform and execute all necessary actions which corresponds to the method of claim 8 where a processing unit provides the user with an interface to update the artifact. Following that, the updated information is stored in a database. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the above previous teachings to create the system taught by the applicant. Further, Zaky teaches a method consisting of a processor that connects with the previously taught system. One in the art would be motivated to add a processor to enable automation to achieve a system where updates can be made and applied. Regarding claim 9, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 7, 10, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) and in view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437) and in further view of Thoren et al. (US20220004656) . Regarding claim 3, Zaky fails to disclose: wherein the code editor interface enables the user to update the artifact definition using a low code programming language. However, Thoren teaches: wherein the code editor interface enables the user to update the artifact definition using a low code programming language. ([0067] “The user may view information in an easy-to-read format, may be able to add data or notes via an input device, or modify the data.” In some embodiments, an application programming interface (API) or communication standard may enable the drag and drop feature.”) A drag and drop feature is a low code approach with a visual interface and significantly faster as well. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky, Fox, and Bregman, with the code editor interface that enables the user to update the artifact definition using a low code programming language as taught by Thoren to create the claimed invention. Applicant states [0003] “A key feature of any "Low code platform" that enables users to create and modify declarative artifacts or user interface (UI) view content through simple drag-and-drop operations is the ability to instantly preview a newly created or modified artifact in a live production environment.” Adding the drag and drop feature taught by Thoren to the teachings of Zaky, Fox, and Bregman would create the claimed invention. One in the art would be motivated to combine these teaching because this low code approach addresses downtime concerns and increases a user’s efficiency and experience with the easy-to-read format. Regarding claim 7, Zaky teaches: replace the current version of the artifact as stored on the application server with the updated artifact ([0036] “If the user saves the artifact then the artifact is stored or updated in the file system 16 and an artifact record is added to or updated in the database 22 .”) Zaky teaches that an update can be either stored or updated in the database. Updating would correspond to replacing the artifact with the new updated version. Zaky fails to disclose: update a user interface of the user device to reflect the updated artifact stored on the application server, within the application. However, Thoren teaches: update a user interface of the user device to reflect the updated artifact stored on the application server, within the application. ([0192] “In block 932, the user 902 may view the updated electronic visualization interface as rendered and displayed by the computer system.” [0223] “The user may then interact with the user interface through the web-browser. User interfaces of certain implementations may be accessible through one or more dedicated software applications.”) Applications are utilized to view the user interface which consists of the updated changes. Combining the update/replace feature of an artifact taught by Zaky with the teaching of Thoren would result in the user having visual access to the update. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky with the artifact update notification system taught by Fox with the teachings of Bregman to create an artifact update system that provides notifications and is done in a live production environment. Additionally, one in the art would be motivated to combine these teachings with the teachings of Thoren to create an efficient system that updates the user interface with their new updated artifact on the user device directly. Making this modification would result in having a system where the user has an instant preview of their changes and increasing a user’s overall experience. Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above. Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) in view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437 and in further view of Abiezzi (US20160285956A1) . Regarding claim 4, Zaky fails to disclose: wherein the user updates are detected based on local storage of the updated artifact definition in the user device. However, Abiezzi teaches: wherein the user updates are detected based on local storage of the updated artifact definition in the user device. ([0055] “The user device updates the user interface data in accordance with the received instructions (step 412 ). In particular, the user device retrieves the off-screen user interface data from the local storage and presents the off-screen user interface data or, if appropriate, the portion of the off-screen user interface data that was identified in the received instructions.”) The system is detecting if a user has made any updates/changes to the artifact by checking the information that is stored locally on the device, for example the data being stored in the database. One in the art can view local storage as data that is stored directly on a device like a computer or phone. Abiezzi teaches a similar system where once the user has made an update, the user’s device will retrieve that data from the user’s device where the data is directly stored and changes are also tracked. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky, Fox, Bregman and Thoren, with the teachings of Abiezzi to create a system where a user’s updates are stored locally. Making this modification would allow for a faster user experience as any updates would be read in and changed immediately, making the system more desirable. Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 5 and 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) in view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437) in view of Abiezzi (US20160285956A1) in further view of Naedele et al. (EP1324193A1) . Regarding claim 5, Zaky fails to disclose: wherein a wrapper component associated with the artifact is subscribed to the event notification. However, Naedele teaches: wherein a wrapper component associated with the artifact is subscribed to the event notification. ([0006] “a wrapper component for each application to be integrated for converting application specific notifications and/or data structures of an application specific data model into generic notifications used by the integration system and vice versa and for forwarding notifications; and a central notification distribution system for receiving and sending generic notifications from and to the wrapper components of the integration system.” [0008] “An application-specific notification is any programming process within an application that leads to a change in the model managed by the application program. These include, for example, "events" in the narrower sense, synchronous and asynchronous calls of an application procedure, interrupts, etc.”) Naedele teaches a system and method for consistent modeling where the system consists of a wrapper component tied to generating notifications. The data structures correspond to artifacts/the part of an application. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky, Fox, Bregman, Thoren and Abiezzi, with the teachings of a wrapper component associated with the artifact that is subscribed to the event notification that is seen in Naedele to create a well-connected system that allows a user to make updates and provides the system with a notification to process the update. Resulting in efficiency in the application itself which allows the user to achieve their desired result/updated artifact. Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) in view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437) and in further view of Sen et al. (US20220414156A1) Regarding claim 6, Zaky fails to disclose: use a graph query language to query a graph database wherein the updated artifact definition is stored, of the database server. However, Sen teaches: use a graph query language to query a graph database wherein the updated artifact definition is stored, of the database server ([0005] “A graph query language is used to construct and execute queries on the graph database and to create, update, and manipulate components of a graph database.”) Zaky further teaches: retrieve the updated artifact definition from the database server based on the querying of the graph database. ([0038] “Any navigation commands to view a particular artifact 42 issued by a user/developer and received by the IDE 30 causes the navigator 32 to query the database 22 and to retrieve a reference to the artifact 42 from the database 22 . The navigator 22 then uses the reference to retrieve the artifact from the file system.”) The navigator corresponds to the system taught in claim 6 where both query a database and retrieve an item from the database. By utilizing a graph query language as taught by Sen to the teachings of Zaky, you would achieve the result of having a system that stores updates on a database and then retrieves those updates using a graph query language to query the database. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zaky with the artifact update notification system taught by Fox with the teachings of Bregman to create an artifact update system that provides notifications and is done in a live production environment. Additionally, one in the art would be motivated to combine these teachings with the teachings of Sen in adding a graph database and using a graph query language which would help maintain and organize the updates a user has made. Graph query languages are highly efficient for systems that manage and store data, making this addition desirable to one in the art as it allows for overall efficiency . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaky et al. (US20060212843) in view of Fox et al. (US20130212562) in view of Bregman et al. (US20230035437 and in further view of Abiezzi (US20160285956A1) and in further view of Sen et al. (US20220414156A1) . Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in the rejection of claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (US 20200326914 A1) CREATING AN APP METHOD AND SYSTEM; Teaches a method and system for creating an app using a search driven approach while utilizing user updates. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tubba Noor whose telephone number is 571-270-0803 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do , can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2193 /Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 6 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 11 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 12 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 13 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 14 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 15 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/743,660 Page 16 Art Unit: 2193
Prosecution Insights